After a cat-and-mouse day two of the first Ashes Test, Katya Witney was at Edgbaston to reflect on England’s awkward use of their seam attack.
You can bet on the 2023 Ashes with our Match Centre partners, bet365.
Ollie Robinson has been England’s most profitable revelation with the ball since he came back into the side last summer. In that time, he has taken 27 wickets in 15 innings and has only left his wicket column blank on two occasions. Tomorrow, that could become three.
His metronomic lengths made him the pick of England’s seamers in Pakistan on flatter pitches than this one. By his own admission, where he’s gone wrong for England in the past was pulling back to bowl ‘pretty lengths’.
All of this considered the sight of him bowling early 80mph bouncers to Travis Head today was jarring. Once Steve Smith was out, England went to their short-ball ploy almost immediately. The tactic itself is not necessarily incorrect. Head looked fairly uncomfortable against the short ball in the World Test Championship final against India, and it nearly did for him on a couple of occasions today. But, if that’s England’s premeditated tactic, why has it fallen on Robinson, and indeed Broad, to execute it?
Eyebrows were raised when Mark Wood wasn’t selected for this Test match. They disappeared up foreheads once more when Mitchell Starc was also left out of Australia’s side. But Australia didn’t force Scott Boland to bang his 84mph-ers halfway down the track.
When Wood has been absent from the team in the past, and at other points, Stokes has been the one to take on the enforcer role. He didn’t do so today. Perhaps his knee doesn’t allow him to take that job anymore, which is understandable. But you cannot take away the personnel and expect the tactic to be as effective. Robinson is at his best pitching the ball up and looking for movement off the seam. It’s not a coincidence he looked far better when he was brought back on to do that after tea.
[breakout id=”0″][/breakout]
Indeed, the period of play where Robinson and Broad bumped Head from one end while Moeen Ali twizzled away from the other was as close as England have been to looking like they had no answer. And it didn’t take much.
Predictably, Khawaja and Head were able to lay into Moeen. All of the old concerns over Moeen were right there at the surface, his inability to perform the holding role as Australia’s batters cashed in, wickets resolutely staying in place. But the absolute belief from Stokes that brought him back into the side in the first place was ultimately England’s saviour.
If the first wicket he picked up was fortunate, Head chipping a catch to mid-wicket on the attack, the second was far from it. A beautiful lofted delivery which ripped out of the footmarks, through the gate and hit the top of middle. Chef’s kiss.
Moeen will always produce those balls. He may not do so with regularity, predictability or without conceding a hefty amount of runs. That’s part of the frustrating brilliance of him as a cricketer. It’s also a credit to Stokes for keeping him on so faithfully when many would’ve taken him off. But, for Moeen to fulfil that role successfully, the seamers around him must also be allowed to play according to their strengths.
Equally, as much as the essence of Stokes’s captaincy is to dictate the terms of play, that’s not what was achieved by bringing Harry Brook onto bowl within the first hour of the morning session. The worst thing Stokes could be, in his mind, is reactive. That’s a fair enough assessment of Test captaincy. But, again, either pick the team that allows you to do that on a featherbed pitch or do so within your collective limitations.
Stokes’s only option now is to do the latter.
